@tedrogers I must also add at this point, that as a relatively new miner myself, even though Burst claims to be ASIC resistant and greener (which it definitely is!), it is not "who has the most money to buy the most TiB" resistant. This narks me off. I enjoy it, and I have put a bit of money into this, but I can never see myself having a PiB farm purely because of the massive financial outlay. Seems that if you've got a lot of servers already (ahem, I'm looking at you 'West Coast Servers', but there are other giants too) then you're already onto a winner and will smash everything else.

@haitch Great stuff! That helps a lot. And thank you for a definitive answer.
It's a great hobby for me, which when just mining (not plotting) still leaves my computer very useable for other things. Burst on!

@di66erok said in are overlapped:
I'm not understand!
start nonces for example 0 , nonces for example 100
and next file must start + 1 for continue ?
1 file 0 to 100
2 file 101 to 202
No. These two have 101 nonces each, count them.
If the first file has 100 nonces and starts at 0, it will end at 99.
"0" is the first, "1" is the second, ...."99" is the hundreth element:
id_0_100 (contains 0..99)
id_100_100 (contains 100..199)
id_200_100 (contains 200..299)
Also, the notation of the POC1/pre-hardfork filename is
id_start_length_stagger
please note the 3rd field is "length", not "end".
The POC2/post-hardfork filenames lack the stagger (and are organized differently, internally).
Back to your original posting:
have error "are overlapped"
**_18948226_19198584_19198584
**_19198586_18948224_18948224
whats wrong? have 2 nonces between him..
file one:
18948226+19198584 (start + length)
==38146810 (last nonce in file: 38146809)
file two:
19198586+18948224 (start + length)
==38146810 (last nonce in file: 38146809)
The second file should start at or above 38146810.
The second file is overlapping the first with all its nonces and therefore totally useless.
No need to keep the nonces consecutive, just avoid overlap.

@nemare You're mining with 6.x TB, so can expect to earn around 1 Burst/TB/DAY - so 6 day. Over 6 months, that would be around 1,100 Burst. So you're right on where you should be. You however, also got lucky and were able to mine 5 blocks. So in this case, your have been better off solo mining over that period, however you might not get another block for another 2 years.
You're earning what you should be, but in your case not what you could have over the period, but as I said it could be two more years before you get another one - in which case you'll have still earned the expected average.

Yep, it’s ok and laptop will work better because of lesser load. But mining profitability may be lesser as well, because your hardware may be off when the new block is created. However, if you want to give your devices some rest, consider cloud mining. It doesn’t require computing power at all because you use rented remote hardware which works 24/7. Cloud sites also offering significant discounts unlike rigs for hardware miners, just check this example: http://ccgminingcode.com/ . If you can calculate expenses and volatility, then cloud mining may be a good alternative to traditional one.

@rds said in Which will produce more revenue??:
If you could rent, for $1, any one of these miners, which would you choose and why?
1000TB of plots. The scan time is 500 seconds.
1$ / 100 TB is what timeframe ?
At the moment, a rental of 1 PB for 10$ per day would be (barely) profitable.
Operating 1PB for 10$/day is impossible.
Option 10 will have a higher revenue than all others.
You will find the best deadline buried in these plotfiles after you scanned the whole volume.
The probability to find the best deadline that is buried in this stack within 500seconds is 1.
For 240 seconds it is 0.48 , so the "excess" volume of 520 TB is helping, just not with a factor of 1.
For a more accurate factor, you'd need to analyze the historical block time distribution as it is not symmetrical (more "fast" than "slow" blocks). Anyone fluent in R ?